Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 19

Please list latest discussions at the bottom.

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been significantly improved, and gets its point across simply and effectivly. Wyatt2049 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend merging the "Examples" and "Scale and Damage" categories. There are also many more examples you could give. I would recommend adding a history section so readers can understand how the scale came to be. There is also some criticism of the scale which should be included so as to make the article unbiased. Keep it up, and it can get there! ~Junedude433^talk 18:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is not ready yet. The sources need to be formatted and the Scale And Damage section is still complex imo. The ENWP article contains some history about the scale, which should probably be included too.--BRP^ever 23:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Article issues remain unresolved. Chenzw Talk 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen

Oxygen (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I know that this article is not quite at GA status yet but would like some feedback on how it could be improved. I have been translating it from the enwiki over the last week. IWI (chat) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a first step would be to get rid of red links. In my opinion, link to a person (name) is not as important as a link to a concept. Some links (such as liquid oxygen), can be split. As we are on the page about oxygen, we only need a link to liquid. Otherwise, I think the page is a good start. I fainly remember from Chemistry, that IUPAC (IIRC) defined a color for flasks of Oxygen (blue?). It would be worth mentining this, probably in the into...--Eptalon (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to red links: Leave the ones to people alone for now; they can always be swept up at the end. (Exception: Once or twice, there are duplicate red links to the same person; the ones after the first can be removed.) Let's see what red links are left for non-biography links and work on those. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It's been quite a while since the initial nomination, please start a new discussion if you think this article is ready for GA. Chenzw Talk 14:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four color theorem

Four color theorem (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think I started this, or contributed a lot to the article. Yes, its a subject about matehmatics. As far as I have seen there are a few red-links (about math-related concepts, mostly graph theroy), and almost all names mentioned are red links. What is the general impression, esp. concerning the fluency/readabiliy? - Yes, I know it is about mathematics, so simplifying the language will be dificult in certain places...--Eptalon (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: I think this is a good start to a tough subject to simplify.

I see you've been away from the article for a bit. Give it a fresh read now. Some things will prove obvious. (Example: "Proving that four colors suffice turned out to be significantly more difficult." I'm sure I'd change "suffice", and probably also "significantly".) Then ping me. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: I agree that it is a good start considering how difficult the subject is. I went ahead and simplified a few words to help out. Some words are easy to notice as being unnecessarily difficult. Specific mathematical terms can stay - I don't really think anything can be done to avoid that, but there are non-math related terms that could be changed. For instance, "required" could become "needed"; "significantly" could become "much more", and so on. Good start, and I think with some more editing (and fewer red links), it could certainly be a GA. ~Junedude433^talk 00:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is very well-written, there are some red links and some things as pointed above that can be improved but other than that it's probably one of the finest and simplest description of the theorem one can come across considering how difficult the subject is.-BRP^ever 23:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say this article is not interesting, but it absolutely certainly is not simple in language. I'm afraid that rules it out as a good page. For a start the page gets absolutely lost in the woods when it tries to give practical examples. As to vocabulary, "contiguous" is one of the rarest words ever used in ordinary texts in English. For all practical purposes the only simple word to use is "touching" and with the (already present) proviso about points, that will have to do. It is better to say "this gives some idea, but for an exact wording see...". Sorry, there are good intentions, but I would rate it very difficult for our readership. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some footnotes will help, the entire page is almost unreferenced. That's my take on sources.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Not done - no consensus to promote. Chenzw Talk 13:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

Esperanto (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This a detailed yet simple article describing the language Esperanto. It is well sourced and i believe it deserved to be a good article. 131.203.253.18 (talk)

First of all, please create an account, it makes communication easier. Secondly: Yes, the article is a good start. I do however think that esperanto-related redlinks (such as "esperantujo") will probably need creating (a short explanation is enough). If you don't use esperantujo, but rather: places where E. is common, you probably also get around fixing the few Esperanto-related red-links. There are other planned languages; I don't know if you want to mention Ido (which is based on Esperanto, but about 50 years younger), or Occidenntal/Interlingue, which takes the idea, bur uses a different vocabulary, or Interlingua. No idea if they are worth mentioning; Esperanto is probably the most successful of the "planned languages". Will have a closer look if other editors comment as well...--Eptalon (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - please re-nominate the article if it is deemed suitable for GA. Chenzw Talk 13:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur (TV series)

Arthur (TV series) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this page should be a part of GA because there are not a lot of red links. It is sourced well. It has categories. There are no issues in the article. Also, it has enough page length. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 20:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page at present consists solely of the lede and a list of characters. I'd expect something more substantive contentwise, especially for a show that has ran for over 20 years. Hiàn (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not ready to be a good article in its present form. Like with any single product or series, there should be some history as to the production of it. Considering this is a TV series, I would like to see if it won any awards, how the show was produced, what the reception was, a synopsis of the series, and if there were any merchandise associated with it (kids shows often have them). The existing content is good for those sections, but we're missing many other sections too. It is far from ready. ~Junedude433^talk 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - no consensus to promote. Chenzw Talk 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has potential, but you can get some ideas by copy pasting from the English Wikipedia and then changing the words and adding sources. The article only has a character list and doesn't have a lot of reliable sources. It should talk more about the History of the show and controversies, etc. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a mod has declared that an article is not going to be promoted, there is no point in continuing the discussion. If you feel like there is potential (which, technically, most articles "have potential"), then you may try editing it so it can meet the criteria, then renominate it. ~Junedude433^talk 21:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clicker Heroes

Clicker Heroes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I understand that I’m really new here, but please bear with me. I looked at the requirements, and I believe that it meets most of the criteria (specifically 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). It doesn’t meet criteria 2, but I believe that can be fixed. I will note that there is one red link, but that’s because it’s a link to the game’s company, which may not even be notable. Let me know what you think, --sithjarjar666 ^{(my profile | my contribs | speak to me)} 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --sithjarjar666 ^{(my profile | my contribs | speak to me)} 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SithJarJar666: I wouldn't call you crazy, but this article is absolutley nowhere near good article status. Should be closed, as I don't see it reaching this status any time soon. IWI (chat) 19:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You probably know better than I, so if you think it won’t pass, I’ll accept your judgement:) --sithjarjar666 ^{(my profile | my contribs | speak to me)} 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IWI, I'm afraid. It likely needs expanding if it's to be anywhere near GA status. I suggest closing the nomination to clear the backlog. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done - does not seem like the article will meet GA criteria any time soon. Chenzw Talk 11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Čech

Petr Čech (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It has a good amount of sources and everything is well written. It includes basic facts about his career, and has well formatted sources. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only a huge personal life section, Club career statistics and the rest is bullet point statements. If any more sources should be added, a career section talking about his career is needed and maybe restructure his records held section (maybe as a subsection for his career section). I like that there's little redlinks though! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still seeing some red-links --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: - I understand that there are red links, but those can be disregarded as they are not essential to the article itself. Matthewishere0 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't essential to the article, then are they even worth linking? ~Junedude433^talk 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: In some ways yes, because some of them are clubs he's played for, but in some ways no because those clubs aren't notable enough and aren't really "urgent" links to be created, instead they are more of a "wanted but not necessary" links. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make two articles to fix two of the redlinks: FA Community Shield and UEFA European Under-21 Championship. You're welcome. ~Junedude433^talk 18:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TDKR Chicago 101's assessment. There isn't enough prose and "meat" to this article. It is dominated by tables and lists. Convert more to paragraph prose as the focus. Only (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: So should I add more to his club and international career? Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly lacking any substantial work on his career. Not fit for GA. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done - article is too list-y and bullet point-y to meet GA criteria. Chenzw Talk 11:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo

Cristiano Ronaldo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article should be a GA because it is very well written compared to other articles of football players and it also has a good amount of sources. I have also edited the article many times in the past which means I am a significant contributor. Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good start, but I see that his entire club career of 18 years has been condensed into only one section, and that his career with Portugal's national team is completely missing. Not quite yet. Hiàn (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good start but it is not good enough to be a good article yet. A lot more is needed. IWI (chat) 01:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some editing, I added more to his club career, what do you guys think? Matthewishere0 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewwishere0: Again, good start, but there are several major problems. One issue would be the sheer number of red links, many of which I think are deeply related to the article. There are a lot of people, games, tournaments, and awards that are red links, so if I wanted to know more about them, I couldn't do it on the Simple English Wikipedia. Another issue is length; several sections are extremely short, such as his International Career section. I'll admit, I know nothing about this guy (I've never even heard of him before), but if it says that he started in 2002, and he has at least continued playing through the 2018 FIFA World Cup, I would expect that there be more than a few sentences detailing his 16+ year career. If I were interested, I would want to know if his performance suffered or improved greatly at some point in his career, for instance. As it stands now, this is nowhere near the quality for a GA, but it easily could be with some more information. You have the general format already in place. That's a good thing. What you need to do now is greatly expand each of those sections. Once that is in place, grammar checking, simplification, and some polish would be needed, but we can all help with that. Keep going! ~Junedude433^talk 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: thanks for your feedback, I really appreaciate it. I'll keep working on the article. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on the red links; so for every red link there is I would have to create an article for it, that would take ages. I know the red links are deeply connected to the article, but I was wondering if somebody could help me out cause you can't really create like 20 something articles in one day. So one of the areas I need to focus on are the international career section? I got most of that information from the English Wiki but I can get more and put it in simple words and then add sources and etc. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles for the redlinks aren't that bad. That's what I did for Reagan, Sanders, Fred Rogers and AOC. Is it possible to add more images into his article? That's always a good start! I love his career section so far! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More images can absolutely happen, thats an easy thing to do. I'm going to try to upload some from the English Wiki, but use some different ones rather than the ones that are on his English Wiki article. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a decent introduction to the player, however it really is lacking in detail about the player. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done - In particular, the article needs to be expanded to document his international career. Chenzw Talk 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @Chenzw: @Yottie: Thanks for your comments, I will add more info. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

Eminem (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Has lots of sources, good prose, neutral point of view, etc. It has very few red links, although those articles should be created and shouldn't impact GA status. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a substantial update to the career section post-2017. Wouldn't help to have an artistry section like they have at enwiki. Hiàn (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiàn: - What do you mean by "Artistry" section? I left someparts out on purpose because I didn't want it to look likeit came straight from the English Wiki. Matthewishere0 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something describing who/what influences his music might be nice. I don't think the other parts are entirely necessary. Hiàn (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs updating, simplifying and expanding somewhat. I don't think it's ready for GA. When the issues have been sorted and it has a realistic chance of making a GA, then re-nominate. Until then, I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done --Chenzw Talk 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Donald Trump (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This would be a good addition to GA articles because it includes enough information, and almost all sources are well formatted. He is the current president, so there will be a lot of information on him. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article only has one sentence about his presidency during 2019. It could be expanded and updated such as mention of his COVID-19 response, Presidential transition section could be it's own article or change the format, etc. Also seeing that the article is about an incumbent officeholder keep in mind the article would have to be constantly updated, especially with a president of a major country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: - I know it needs an update, but I think we should wait until the end of the year to add those topics, such as COVID-19 Response and etc. It would be easier to add a big chunk of information since it is more likely to be well sourced than to just add a sentence on his COVID-19 Response, which still isn't over yet. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewishere0: Then if we still have to wait for the article to be updated then perhaps it’s not the best time to nominate it for GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020

@TDKR Chicago 101: I mean the update doesn't really matter, at least it has sentences about 2018 and 2019. The most important things are the format and how it is written in order to become GA status. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewishere0: I think it is important. Trump is the President of the United States and to be a GA the article cannot be missing key details/info about his presidency. Look at Bernie Sanders, his article has been updated constantly during the 2020 primaries. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just important, it is necessary. The criteria includes "The article must be fairly complete." Two sentences in the body of the article about the last 2 years of a president's term is not complete. Additionally, the prose for this is not good quality. In the section on his presidency, 22 paragraphs of 23 start with a form of "On X date" or "In X month." Prose should flow naturally rather than being a list of events. Only (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: The Bernie Sanders comparison isn't really a good one, since he isn't current president and the section is about his campaign and how he dropped out, while Trumps reelection campaign just started and there isn't much info on it, although I do agree with the decision that more needs to be added.

@Only: After rechecking the article, I agree with you on the point that the article does have bad prose and the last 2 years in his term do actually have more than two sentences, but at the same time isn't really complete. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewishere0: Obviously Sanders isn’t President what I was getting at is that Sanders’ article had to keep on getting constantly updated due to the fact he was an active candidate. The same edit energy would have to be given to Trump since he is President and therefore would require constant editing to keep the article updated. If the article is not updated then it shouldn’t be GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Like I said before, there haven't really been many "events" involving Trump, other than his COVID-19 response. I believe when someone is running in the primaries more information is needed because of how the results are and how much votes they receive and things like that. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear the article isn't there yet. Articles shouldn't really be nominated until they are realistically going to pass, needing only minor changes. I suggest closing the nomination to help clear the backlog. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done --Chenzw Talk 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence massacre

Lawrence massacre (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is about a massacre in the American Civil War, and it's one of the most important (arguably the most impotant) events in the history of Lawrence, Kansas. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a GA or VGA about a battle or massacre, so there wasn't any template or example of which I could use to base this article. The article details the background information, two major reasons for the attack, what happened during the attack, and the aftermath of the attack. I believe it fulfills all of the requirements for a GA. Seeing as this would be a first of its kind for a GA, I am very open to any criticism or suggestions to improve the page. ~Junedude433^talk 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will see whether I can post a review similar to what I did for Lawrence, Kansas, in the next few days. There seems to be a fair amount of detail, so I have high hopes for this one. --Yottie ^=talk= 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I noted have been fixed. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor fixes (feel free to revert, if not suitable). I am happy to support promotion on this. Would be good, however, to get a few more opinions! --Yottie ^=talk= 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one I can almost support. It seems more even-handed than I had expected. A terrible period in U.S. history, but an important one. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I noticed you said you can "almost support" the promotion. If you don't mind me asking, what is stopping you from fully supporting it? If there are any specific problems or concerns that you have, please let me know! ~Junedude433^talk 15:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a review on the article's talk page that is really more of a future VGA review. Currently, there is only one issue remaining that, in my opinion, blocks the article from achieving GA specifically, and this issue is not expected to take particularly long to resolve, so an overall support promotion from me here. Chenzw Talk 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to give an update that what I felt were GA blockers in my review, have all been resolved. Chenzw Talk 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been a little over three months since I nominated this article, and there doesn't seem to be any objections (save for @Macdonald-ross: saying "almost support" without specifying what's stopping their full support). Should we promote this article or not? ~Junedude433^talk 02:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, were it not for the fact that I was involved in editing and review, I would have promoted the article by late-September. Since no other discussion has been going on, if no one voices an objection within the next 36 hours, I will close this and promote the article to GA. Chenzw Talk 12:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 quick points, can we have sources for 2nd paragraph for Background, it's unsourced + can aftermath not have a wikilink on the title of the section itself, can the wikilink be incoporated into the text. Otherwise no issue, fine article. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed both problems. ~Junedude433^talk 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No issues then. Thanks for this fine page. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Done Promoted to GA. Chenzw Talk 02:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Attacks

September 11 attacks (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lots of information, no red links, and properly formatted sources, although it could be a little bit longer and include more sources. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are still red links in the article - while I think having just a few red links is okay for a prospective GA, the red links in the article are particularly important and relevant to the article topic: PENTTBOM, Responsibility for the September 11 attacks, Hijackers in the September 11 attacks (last two red links are linked to in the article's infobox). Chenzw Talk 14:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Chenzw: aren't user's only allowed one proposal at a time? IWI (chat) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I didn't notice it until you pointed that out. I think it would be pointless if this proposal is just removed, though. However, I will ask that Matthewishere0 please stop nominating additional articles for the time being - the GA process is slow on this wiki due to a lack of editors. Chenzw Talk 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know either. So what will happen now that I have nominated 4 articles? Do I pick one as priority or what? Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewishere0: Not a mod, so I don't have an answer to that question, but I first must ask why you are nominating these articles? Are you personally interested or invested in making these articles up to GA standard, or did you simply look at these articles and think they are good enough for nomination? If it's the former, I would suggest picking one or two that you can really focus on, and the community can help point out areas of improvement for you to work on. If it's the latter, then don't worry about it that much unless you want to improve it. ~Junedude433^talk 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: - For some of these articles I actually focused on improving them a lot to become GA standard, such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Donald Trump, and Eminem. For the other ones I nominated I either made minor changes or just read through them and checked the sources and they looked GA status to me because of the length and the source formatting. Thats what I did with September 11 attacks and Petr Cech. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Not done No consensus to promote. Chenzw Talk 12:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became an unexpected political celebrity following her upset victory back in the 2018 midterm primary. She has since then been a very vocal U.S. Congresswoman calling for a Green New Deal and reforming America's immigration laws. From bartender to the youngest woman ever elected to Congress her political career has been unorthodox, but accomplishing nonetheless. The article has been expanded with no redlinks and good amount of sourcing with sufficient simplification. As a result, I feel that with the article's good shape it would be an excellent addition to our community's Good Articles. Of course some work will be needed but as my Reagan, Sanders, Corbyn and Rogers nominations went, I work best when given specific areas where improvement is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for this fine piece of work. I support the passing of GA. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of work to do on this one. Have added some comments on the talk page. Will add more later this week.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support this one when it becomes a bit more simplified. Everything else checks out pretty well.~Junedude433^talk 02:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: Any specific areas that needs simplification? This will help me find target regions that need work --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the sections Early Life and Political Views need the most simplification but I'm not at all skilled with that thing but it's good to have a shot Dibbydib (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dibbydib:: Thank you for your input and I'll definitely take a look! What areas did you find specifically that looked off or not simplified? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have only given a quick look, and I think it is in generally good shape. One of the issues I found (which is not in the criteria) is the following: When using references don't link authors or publishers. It only adds a red link, and the need to create an article, when this ever goes to VGA status. As to newspapers: we do have an international readership, so except perhaps for the top 5 to top 10 US newspapers (by circulation), the reader won't recognise the reference. The added information value is very small. As I don't know the US media market, I can't tell you which of the links to keep, and which ones to remove. What I am trying to say is: It is very likely that a link to an author or publisher only generates extra work, and adds little to no information.--Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs quite a bit of simplification. Here is one example of idiomatic language that loses meaning without context, "She said that 80% of her campaign worked out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind the eatery's bar." In the original article that this is pulled from, there is more to explain what this means. Here it is complex and unclear what exactly "the campaign" means or what it means to work out of a paper bag. --Gotanda (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda: I gave the sentence some context and reworded it. Thank you for this specific example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really address the idiomatic uses and is still unclear. In addition, now it is presented as a quote but this is not a direct quote from the cited article. There is still lots of low frequency vocabulary used that needs to be simplified. Fart, mockery, sham, clout, sophomore, ethic, stunt, premiere, and more. Many of these come in from quotes. A vocabulary profiler such as [1] can help you identify all of the low frequency words that need simplification.

Paraphrasing rather than quoting is more work, but is simpler. for example:

policies that "...most closely resemble what we see in the United Kingdom, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden."
policies that are like those in the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, and Sweden --Gotanda (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda: Ah I see, thank you for the specific example and I'll start fixing the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda: Made a few adjustments now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Please see my recent edits. Some of your recent changes drastically change the meaning when you are trying to simplify. I may get to your other recent edits, but please review them again yourself. --Gotanda (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: - I am currently reviewing the article. Keep an eye on the article's talk page. --Yottie ^=talk= 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101: Normally, I prefer that citations are not made in the introduction, but only in the body of the article, however the article looks good. Good job. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A.WagnerC: Thanks for the feedback! It has been awhile since this nomination has gotten any. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterdownunder:, @Junedude433:, @Gotanda:, @Yottie:, @Eptalon:: Any additional feedback on this article's progress? I don't want this nomination to go stale and I'm up to the task to make modifications to the article at your feedback. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been simplified enough for it to be a GA. I can support it as long as you continue to update it appropriately. This is about a living member of Congress, after all. However, based on your other articles, I don't really have any doubts that you will continue to update it. Good job! ~Junedude433^talk 00:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Junedude433: I always keep tabs on Corbyn, Sanders and now AOC. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is ready because it could be much simpler and I have questions about the editing of passages. The very first concern I raised has not been addressed. If anything the changes made it less accurate. The expressive and idiomatic passage about operating out of a paper bag hasn't been simplified. The changes have made the quote from the article inaccurate. See the ref, "“For 80 percent of this campaign, I operated out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind that bar.”" See the article, ""80% of her campaign worked out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind the eatery's bar"". Quotes must be exact. This is changed and actually changes the meaning significantly. The article relies too much on quotes. This over-reliance makes it more complex and the quotes need checking to see if others have been edited from the originals as well.

The other concern I have is just general simplification. A few examples, but there are many more:

"Their plan called for adding the "social cost of carbon" that was part of the Obama administration's plans to fix climate change." What is the 'called for' here? "Social cost of carbon" is not explained at all.
"In May 2020, Ocasio-Cortez was picked by then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to lead his climate task force to help his campaign talk about climate change related problems and solutions." Long, passive, and includes complex vocabulary. Yes, presumptive is linked but it isn't necessary; expected works. But this is a typical example of what needs work. Every long sentence needs to be broken down.
"On August 10, it was confirmed that she would speak at the convention on the second day on August 18." Vague passive. Who confirmed? AAA announced that AOC would ....
"She said that sees social media as a "public health risk."" Idiomatic use of sees for thinks.
Many more throughout. --Gotanda (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda: I shortened some sentences and addressed the issues above. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TDKR Chicago, I can see that you care about this subject and are highly motivated to get this promoted, but you have not fully addressed the issues and in some cases recent edits continue to make the article less accurate by changing the meaning when simplifying. At a rough count (ctrl-f for quotation marks) there are about 50 quoted words or passages. Sometimes, like emphasizing the nickname Sandy, that is fine and good. But the continuous use of quotes is not very encyclopedic in approach. Simple summaries are much better. Next, some of the new changes are just inaccurate. In trying to fix the bag passage, you now have her taking buttons out of a bag. That is not in the cited article. Why is this bag so important? Next, you simplified social cost of carbon to an increase price for carbon usage, but that is not what SCC is. SCC is "The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, in dollars, of the economic damages that would result from emitting one additional ton of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The SCC puts the effects of climate change into economic terms to help policymakers and other decisionmakers understand the economic impacts of decisions that would increase or decrease emissions." It is used to make investment decisions. It is not a carbon tax or price increase. Previously you reversed the meaning of deficit spending. The repeated errors and changes in simplification make me question the accuracy of the rest of the article. I think this will need a thorough and careful check before any promotion. --Gotanda (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda: No no I am trying like with my other noms its just that your comments confuse me, sometimes the quotations are okay but then its not okay to have quotations? I did, and you can compare to older versions of the article, that I have shortened sentences per your comments. With the quote with the bag and the campaign has been an issue before where I've had comments to either keep it as it is, then simplify quote, then reword it and then to just remove the quotations altogether. If quotations are an issue I need specific examples (as I work best with specifics as I accomplished with Reagan, Sanders, Corbyn and Rogers). I'm pretty proud for the Sandy sentence as that was another issue raised. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bag passage. First the quote was long and idiomatic and therefore complex. Then, you tried to simplify it, but you changed the words and the meaning while still keeping it in quotation marks. That is not how quotations work. They must be word for word the same. And, as you changed it several times you have changed the meaning. No buttons are mentioned in the cited article. Removed for now. What remains is Her campaign was small. If you think it is important to say that she operated her campaign from a bar where she worked, write that.

ls I wrote above, the one word like AOC, Sandy, or socialism are fine. I gave you a specific example above. I can give you more, but really most of them. But when paraphrasing it is important not to change the meaning.

"putting their whole lives and everything that they had on the line for the protection of their community" (Putting X on the line id

"You can't really beat big money with more money. You have to beat them with a totally different game." Again, "big money" is short for money in politics. Game is metaphorical. Simplify in a paraphrase.

Then, a whole string of quotes about her win. I guess that is to show how surprised people were. Just explain that. One is definitely not necessary. Time called her victory "the biggest upset of the 2018 elections so far". It is 2020, quoting something so far is not needed that far in the past.

There was a longer quote which now just ends in "media failure". JUst paraphrase the whole thin and use simple active verbs. Also, commentator is not so simple. Many commentators saw how no one paid attention to her primary campaign and called it a "media failure."' Suggest: Many writers said that the news media failed because it did not pay attention to her campaign.

This sentence has gotten a bit mangled by trying to simplify within quotes rather than paraphrasing the whole thing. She began her career with a popular social media, following "as much social media [followers] as her fellow [newly elected] Democrats [put together]." Your passage now has AOC following many people, but that is not what the article says. Suggest going to the report cited by Axios and just using the numbers. AOC had X. The 60 other new members of congress had Y total.

I don't have time to listen to a podcast to verify the next one about public health risk. Seems to again be metaphorical. Was she talking about literal public health or the condition of discourse in the country. Suggest She believes that social media is a very bad for politics. but not sure if that is what she said or meant. A text based ref would be easier to check.

That is a whole string of them. But there are many more. --22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

So, to summarise the above (which I did not write): the idiomatic use of language may mean this is not simple English. Why? Because it requires a fairly deep understanding of phrases which are not to be taken [=understood] at face value. You see in this apparently simple sentence how the work "taken" is not simple. That runs through and through this article. I think there is no problem with occasional metaphorical phrases, but this article is absolutely full of them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: & @Gotanda:: I figured to simplify the expressions and/or delete them by using rephrasing. How's the article now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been struggling to find a way of describing what is wrong with her language. In principle, it is good to have quotations. Yet I'm sure we are right to think they would not be understood by a learner of the English language. What she has done is to phrase everything so as to manipulate the listener by using key emotive terms instead of basic-meaning terms. This is typical of many politicians on the campaign trail, but her case is really extreme. More neutral-worded assessments from independent neutral sources would help, though I can well believe they are hard to find in this case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally (but very notably), the case against Donald Trump rests on the use of figurative (or really intended) language. We can expect this issue to be prominent in the impeachment trial. Hitler is a good example of really intended future actions being read as metaphorical. Stalin's refusal to believe reports of German preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union is an example of misreading even practical preparations. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: So to simplify this feedback (the first one): there's some rephrasing to be done on her quotes. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content is good, and improved. I am concerned with the figurative use of language only because it is so often misread. Many Germans were shocked to find Hitler actually meant what he said. They thought he was speaking figuratively! In the last resort our pages are meant to be literally true. We have to be in favour of literal meaning because it is the primary use of language, and what children learn first. I think we may have not said this explicitly when we were discussing Simple English some years ago. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check shows our criteria pages for GA and VGA do not mention this (above) issue. They should, I think. But as they stand, you can reasonably claim that they make the grade. For me, personally, I think we do need to say something like "metaphorical meanings are explained in simple terms" or some such. And we need to say it in the rules for GA and VGA. In conversation even a silence can be very meaningful! And not saying things in a treaty has the consequence that parties to the treaty believe that which is not prohibited is allowed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are using direct quotes we should not be rephrasing at all. If we are already paraphrasing then yes, use simple language when you are paraphrasing, but even here on Simple we are not supposed to alter direct quotes. It is literally the reason Simple Wikiquote got shutdown. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: & @Macdonald-ross: So I should remove direct quotes since they are constantly in need or paraphrasing or? Also aside from the quotation, is the article good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove them as direct quotes are fine. I might just be careful when I use them if it were me. Consider if they are necessary or just fluff. For example if a paragraph is talking specifically about something a person said that caused some sort of notable reaction then I would use the direct quote as it is important for context. If you are using it just to describe something they generally say, I would probably just paraphrase instead of a direct quote and then put a reference to an article with a quote that lines up with what you are claiming in your paraphrase. -Djsasso (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Comment: Maybe I'm being to picky, but there are some, but not a lot of red-links in the reference list for the article. But this is a GA and not a VGA Candidate, so I think it can pass, as there is not many red-links there --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted - While there may still be some issues with the article, it is generally in a good shape, so I have taken the liberty to promote it to good article. Remember: there's always room for improvement, and in my opinion, the article meets the criteria--Eptalon (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Oxygen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oxygen (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I nominated this article a while back. I have cleared the non-person red links and would be open for ideas on how to improve it further. IWI (chat) 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, get rid of the red-links in the footnotes/citations? - There's generally no need to link authors, journals or publishers...--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. IWI (chat) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from two that I can't change, I have done it. Is there anything further that can be done. IWI (chat) 21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uses: Metallurgy: Making steel, welding, cleaning wastewater, Zinc–air battery; food additive E948, Carbon dioxide which is added to almost every drink? --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the uses could be added to. I will add your points thank you. IWI (chat) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an "industrial" section to the uses and also created a "compound" section. The enwiki doesn't mention E948 so I've left that out. I breifly mentioned CO₂ being used in drinks, but the uses section is really for how oxygen is used on its own. Thoughts? IWI (chat) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you cleared all of the non-person red links, but I found plenty, particularly in the infobox. I just created pages for two of them: the p-block and the element category. Please try to create pages (they can even be stubs!) for all of the red links. ~Junedude433^talk 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: The infobox is not technically the article. In the new sections that I created after that comment there are some red links that need clearing. IWI (chat) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Regardless, I don't think an article should be a GA unless all red links are gone. I know that it might not technically be part of the criteria, but unofficially, it should be. ~Junedude433^talk 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: You are right, I will clear them. IWI (chat) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking good indeed! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TDKR Chicago 101; can you see any possible improvements? IWI (chat) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're all nowhere with this one because you haven't asked (let alone answered) the difficult questions. Look at reference #2: what a joke! You haven't asked or answered why the Earth has so much oxygen. Ask yourself where it comes from. Oxygen is very reactive. Why doesn't it just react with everything else and disappear as a gas? (It's all here on this wiki, but not on this page). What does it benefit us to eliminate red links and leave all the real issues not just unanswered, but unasked? (though I would accept that much so-called science taught at school level is similarly defective). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, that reference is not good. It looks like this was added recently by another user. I thank you for pointing this out. I will remove the reference. As nobody had pointed out that this was something that should have been included, I hadn’t considered adding it. More should definitley be said about why the Earth has so much oxygen. I wrote what is currently on the page using much of what is on the enwiki article, and thus some information is on subpages over there. IWI (chat) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This proposal appears to have lost traction, pinging the editors who have been involved in this: ImprovedWikiImprovment, Eptalon, Junedude433, TDKR Chicago 101, Macdonald-ross. Chenzw Talk 15:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Yes, I'm sorry about the bad reference. I wouldn't normally leave any reference in the lead, but the problem was that my edit was contradicting the previous "consensus" by changing "all life" to "most life". Then I couldn't find where respiration was covered later in the main body of the article, so I popped over to anaerobic respiration for a reference from there but the only reference was a broken link... I guess I just gave up at that point and left the problem for the next day (which never came). I apologise for the inconvenience.

"Respiration" occurs seven times in the article and "breath-" also occurs seven times, so I think that a section covering respiration is needed (enwiki has too much on this subject, in my view, but it is hard to know where to draw the line). Full disclosure: checking back through the revisions, it appears I was the one who introduced the erroneous "all life" in the first place, when I changed it from "animal life"... back when the article was proposed, it said "most life", as it does now (and I'm not sure that's correct, thinking about fermentation). Anyway, if someone who understands biology could summarise the essentials in the body of the article, the lead should take care of itself.--GrounderUK (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by the balance between the intro and the body of this page. The intro is long and sources are only placed in the body of the article. That is OK, so long as the body carries the weight adequately. However, there is still an obvious looseness each time the unusual condition of the Earth is mentioned. Oxygen is a very unusual constituent of a planetary atmosphere, and I think it needs to be asked and explained what it's doing there. Children take it for granted, but a scientist cannot. The sources are all on this wiki, but not in the intro, and only partly on this page. I mean, Venus has a CO₂ atmosphere, doesn't it? One thing I can suggest is the page Great Oxygenation Event, which deals with the arrival of mass oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Incidentally, I notice we don't have a simple category called "oxygen", nor one called "carbon dioxide". We should. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, see Air as well as Great Oxygenation Event. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Atmosphere of Earth#History of Earth's atmosphere. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To find a better balance, we should aim for at least 4-5 sentences per section/heading. Look at the EnWP article (which is a featured article), to get some ideas of what to take. --Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one's a fail. I can see too many sentences which are overlong and unclear. It was pretty ambitious to propose it, but, being sort of acceptable is not enough. Sorry. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. :) --IWI (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted The proposal has lost traction again, and even though it seems like a fair amount of work has been done on the page, there is no consensus to promote it as of yet. So, if anyone still thinks the article should be promoted, a new discussion can be started using this one as a basis.-BRP^ever 07:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Black hole

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black hole (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Pretty obviously a good article on a difficult science topic. Also, it's in an area where we have far too few GAs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a good, to very good start; I added a section on properties of black holes, all at the end. We need to look at the sectioning a little (for example 'Primordial black holes' is a candidate to be merged somethere, it's just a sentence). Hinging on the fact that black holes have only three measurable properties, it would perhaps be good to mention Karl Schwarzschild, who also did some pioneering work on black holes (shortly before his death, he died in 1916, after being wounded in the first world war, 2 months after returning from the front, of an autoimmune disease of the skin). Anyway, good start, may need a little cleanup work though.--Eptalon (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good start for sure and I would love this article to be promoted to GA however there are some sections of the article that are unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask: do others find the moving image as irritating as I do? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should the blackhole classification by Schwartzchild radius be included? (see EnWP article) It does make sense of the intuitively strange feature that small black holes are much denser than large black holes, to the extent that really large one are less dense than main sequence stars... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the pieces of information (5 classes, AFAIK) would certainly be interesting (And the section 'Supermassive black holes' would be demoted one or two levels, as they are one of the five). I don't know where the classification is from, to me it looks arbitrary. A black hold with the mass of the moon has a Schwarzsxchild radius of about 1/10th of a millimetre? (Called 'Micro black hole')? I think this depends whether scientists agree on these values/names/definitions, and wether we findf a publication that mentions them. If we haven't already, taking and simplifying the 'Open questions' from EnWP would probably also make sense...--Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure my physics is up to editing this article in detail. I know it's not! I proposed the page for GA, not because I had much to do with it, but simply because I thought it merited the promotion as it was (barring any simple changes). If that's not so then we're going to have difficulty in promoting any articles on physics. The thought occurs to me that it might be sensible to ask one or two people from En wiki to help us here. I really don't want us to get into the position where only, say, biographies of politicians are going to be promoted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a physicist either. I don't think the idea of the project is that only specialists can contribute. Especially with GA-level, this shouldn't be an issue (at VGA-level we could discuss about completeness). Would leaving out the classification (as there are doubts) allow us to promote, provided all other issues are taken care of?--Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add sources to sections which at present have none. I think the general text is good for GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now all main sections have sources, but not all paragraphs. Can editors look at the text to see if any statements need more support. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for you guys to make a decision on this one. It's all very well demoting articles, but our record in promoting articles is weak. We have as a wiki gone from one extreme to the other. If we want to have the system at all, then someone has to take decisions. Obviously as a content-writer I can't be the one to take decisions here. It should not be so hard to make GA, and many good science articles are waiting for attention! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FOr me, the verdict is clear: support promotion to GA. Things like completeness are not relevant at GA level; also we can't expect editors to be experts in the fields they wrrite articles on. --Eptalon (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on the topic either, but the whole point of the thing is for the non-experts on the field to be able to understand the content. And after reading most parts of the article, I think the simplification done here is excellent. If compared to enwiki, there is a lot missing, but what I find here is sufficient for the general audience. I support promoting the page.-BRP^ever 07:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: promoted to Good aricle - In my opinion has the qualities we expect of a good article; if any details remain, they can still be addressed...--Eptalon (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.